V. Research Methodology

A. Sampling Plan and Response Rate

The purpose of this study is to report the survey results of
participant satisfaction with the EEOC's mediation program. These
participants are the charging party, an employee or ex-employee,
and the respondent, the employer or ex-employer. The population for
this research includes all participants in the EEOC mediation
process that was conducted under the supervision of the 50 EEOC
field offices from approximately March 1 to July 31, 2000. The
comprehensive survey design means that sampling techniques were not
used.

The researchers surveyed all EEOC district offices. On or about
March 1, 2000, all field offices were instructed to provide the
survey to all mediation participants for completion and to return
these completed surveys in a sealed envelope to the researchers.
The number of surveys received from each EEOC district office is
set forth in Appendix A.1.

The response rate for these field offices for charging parties
was at least 46.25%. The authors received a total of 2,209 surveys
completed by the charging parties. Of these, 526 responses were not
used in this study (while some were not filled out or only
partially completed, most rejected surveys either did not indicate
the case charge number or did not have a matching case number in
the EEOC database) resulting in a total of 1,683 usable surveys.
Thus, the effective participation rate was at least 35%.

The response rate for respondents was approximately 50%. Of the
2402 surveys received from the respondents, only 1,572 were in a
usable state resulting in an effective participation rate of 33% by
the respondents. The combined effective participation rate of the
total sample was approximately 34%. However, our sample is
representative of the overall population, as demonstrated in the
"profile section" later.

The reason that we state our effective participation and
response rate as "at least" figures is that the EEOC district
offices did not distribute the survey to participants exactly on
March 1. While we derived our figures by looking at all the EEOC
mediations held in all 50 field offices between March 1 and July
31, it is clear that not all mediations were surveyed due to this
staggered rollout. Also, we have not included those surveys (for
mediations held by July 31) which we received after our July 31
cutoff date.

Regarding these surveys that were not used, a review of the
responses indicates that they are, in all ways, similar to the
results that we report below. Also, our reported response rate is
reduced due to our use of numerous cross-tabulations. Finally,
where parties at the site of the mediation declined to fill out
surveys, a "nonresponse log" was kept. Reviews of these nonresponse
logs indicate that there is no probative evidence that the reasons
for nonresponse would affect our reported results.

B. Data Collection Procedures

Data collection was performed through a survey. To maximize
feedback, the parties were asked to fill out the survey at the
conclusion of the mediation. The surveys were given to the
mediators, for distribution at the conclusion of the mediation
session. A protocol addressing the handling of the surveys was
carefully constructed. This protocol was distributed to all
district office ADR coordinators and to all mediators in advance.
According to the protocol, mediators were asked to inform the
parties at the beginning of the session about the survey and to
distribute the survey to the parties at the conclusion of the
session; then, they had to leave the room while the surveys were
being completed. Whenever possible, the participants were
separated, allowing them to complete the surveys in two different
rooms. After the participants received the survey, they were asked
to complete it, place it in an envelope, and seal it to ensure
confidentiality. Mediators were then asked to forward the surveys
in the sealed envelopes to the local ADR coordinator along with the
other required documentation about the mediation. The local ADR
coordinators were asked to mail the surveys once a week directly to
the research team. As discussed earlier, the mediators or field
office ADR coordinators were also asked to indicate when
participants did not fill out the survey. This was done to allow
the researchers to measure the non-response bias. The complete
protocol can be found in Exhibit 2.

C. The Participant Satisfaction Survey

A survey was developed to measure the satisfaction of the
parties with the EEOC mediation process. This survey was based on
the prior dispute resolution system research performed by Dr.
McDermott (one of the authors), feedback from the EEOC National ADR
coordinator Steve Ichniowski, and the literature review of the
field of ADR program evaluation (section II of this report). Care
was taken to ensure that we measured the EEOC's goals (where
applicable) with regard to the fairness of its mediation program,
which were to provide adequate information about the process, the
opportunity for assistance, knowing and voluntary participation,
neutrality, confidentiality, and enforceability.

The survey is a 22-item survey that included 14 five-point
Likert-type responses ranging from strongly disagree (1) to
strongly agree (5). A Likert scale was used because there is
evidence that it is superior to other measurement formats in
measuring attitudes, and its underlying factorial structure is more
stable across situations and cultures.<117> Of the remaining eight questions,
five were primarily "yes or no" questions, two were open-ended
questions, and one was a multiple-choice question. One open-ended
question gave participants who did not resolve their claim a chance
to explain why they thought there was no resolution of their
charges. The second open-ended question gave participants the
opportunity to offer suggestions for improving the mediation
process. The multiple-choice question sought to identify the
mediation status of the participants. A pretest established that,
for most participants, the survey took about 5 minutes to complete.
A copy of the survey can be found in Exhibit 3.<118>

Since the survey is an original measure, there are no prior
reliability and validity figures. It has construct validity since
its items measured the various elements of participant satisfaction
with the mediation process. The survey was carefully constructed to
ensure that the questions were properly worded. Mr. Steve
Ichniowski, National ADR Coordinator and an ex-EEOC administrative
judge, Dr. Pat McDermott, an employment law litigator, and Dr.
Mollie Bowers, a professional neutral and member of the National
Academy of Arbitrators, used their professional expertise to ensure
the proper wording of these questions. We also used the results of
the pilot study to modify questions.

D. Pilot Study

Researchers recommend pilot testing the survey to ensure that
the questions are well understood by the target population.<119> In order to validate the
survey, the following was done: (1) a panel of experts validated
the survey. The panel members included not only the research team,
but also persons familiar with the EEOC mediation process;

(2) the survey was pretested on the mediation participants to
determine the time required to complete the survey, whether the
participants understood the questions, and whether the questions
elicited the information for which they were designed. Also, the
authors used the pretest to ensure that the questions did not
contain any biases or other errors. Based on the feedback received
from the respondents of the pilot study, modifications were made to
the survey in order to improve its construct validity.

E. Data Analytical Techniques

The data was analyzed using Microsoft Excel and SPSS. The data
analytical techniques of this study were primarily summary
statistics, such as frequencies, percentages, and averages. We also
used ANOVA and Chi-Square Tests of Independence to investigate
whether participant responses varied according to variables, such
as the characteristics of the mediation sessions and the nature of
the charges. The appropriateness of these tests as the data
analytical techniques comes from the nature of the study, which
measured participant satisfaction with the mediation program.